Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:54:00.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Economic Consequence of 1688

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

W. Darrell Stump
Get access

Extract

Seventeenth century England may be described by various adjectives, many of them indicating a divided society. This was a century of rebellion and reaction, of popery and puritanism, of factions and political parties, of Parliament and King, and finally, of Common Law and prerogative power. As the 1600's came to a close, the air of crisis gradually passed from the English scene to be replaced by the serenity, indeed the complacency, of the eighteenth century. But this newly stable England of squire and clergy rested on earlier achievements. Revolt succeeded and became accepted; popery was pushed, many hoped, into the farther reaches of hell; toleration was accorded trinitarian Protestants; patronage-based political parties began to dominate Parliament while Commons increasingly became the seat of power. But what happened in this period to prerogative monopoly, frequently utilized by both Tudor and Stuart monarchs to reward favorites at the expense of the economy? This neglected issue can be examined through attempts of the Royal African Company, chartered under the Restoration Stuarts, to enforce its patent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 1974 , pp. 26 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hill, Christopher, The Century of Revolution, (New York, 1961), pp. 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Davies, Kenneth G., The Royal African Company, (Lond., 1960), pp. 38–40Google Scholar; Wagner, D. O., “Coke and The Rise of Economie Liberalism,” The Economie History Review, VII, (First Series, 1936–1937):30–44Google Scholar; Wagner, “The Common Law and Free Enterprise: An Early Case of Monopoly,” Ibid., pp. 217-220.

3 Nichols, Glen O., “English Government Borrowing 1660-1688”, Journal of British Studies, IX–X, pp. 84–95Google Scholar; Davies, , Royal African Co., pp. 107–109.Google Scholar

4 Hill, , Century of Revolution, pp. 32–33Google Scholar; Davies, , The Royal African Co., pp. 108, 117–123Google Scholar; Holdsworth, W. C., “A neglected aspect of the Relations between Economic and Legal History,” The Economic History Review, I, (First Series, 1927): 117–18.Google Scholar

5 Concise Dictionary of National Biography, (London, 1953), I:635Google Scholar; Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Times, (Oxford, 1823), V:432Google Scholar; Stephen, Leslie and Lee, Sidney, eds., Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford, 1921), IX:1096–99Google Scholar, X:714-18.

6 The English Reports, (Edinburgh, 1932), LXXXIX:496–502Google Scholar. Davies, , The Royal African Company, pp. 115, 117, 123.Google Scholar

7 The English Reports, LXXXIX:497, 501Google Scholar; The English Reports, (Edinburgh, 1908), XC: 680–81, 1160–61.Google Scholar

8 The English Reports, LXXXIX:497.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 498. 501-02.

10 Ibid., 498.

11 Ibid.. 498-99.

12 Ibid., 500-01. The lawyer for Nightingale noted that in East India Co., v. Sandys' case the clause authorizing seizure and forfeiture of goods by the Company was omitted when a copy of their patent was presented to the Court, and both sides agreed that the clause was not justifiable. Various internal evidence infers that Holt presented the plaintiffs argument in the Nightingale case under discussion.

13 The Act of Settlement (1701) enlarged judicial independence by establishing life tenure for judges.

14 Ibid., 501-02.

15 Ibid., 496. Chief Justice Holt continued to contribute to the citizen's right to be protected by the courts throughout his career. His refusal to countenance witchcraft trials and his dissent in Ashby v. White (1704) are well known. In 1705 a negro slave was freed when Holt's court declared that a slave became free upon entry into England. (Smith v. Brown & Cooper).

16 Cobbett, , Parliamentary History of England, (Lond., 1809), V:828.Google Scholar

17 For example, the Crown in 1695-1696 utilized John Locke's influence to overcome Parliamentary opposition to a Royal Board of Trade formed for patronage and political purposes. Laslett, Peter, “John Locke, the Great Recoinage, and the Origins of the Board of Trade: 1695-1698,” William and Mary Quarterly, XIV (July, 1957): 375–90, 402.Google Scholar

18 SirAshley, William, Surveys, Historic and Economic, (London, 1900), pp. 270–308.Google Scholar

19 Thomas, , Mercantilism and The East India Company, (London, 1926), pp. 94–7Google Scholar. Thomas called for revision of Ashley's “Tory free trade” thesis. He stated that “in deed, nothing must have been more hateful to the Tories than a free trade policy” (p. 94). He agrees that Tories favored the French trade to aid the Stuarts, that attitudes toward the Indian trade were determined not by party but self-interest, and that “the truth of the matter is that there was as yet [1713] no definite party cleavage on the question of Protection versus Free Trade.…The present party cleavage on tariff policy dates from much later times” (96-97). Thomas also argued that both political parties desired to protect home industry. W. C. Abbott in tracing the origins of Toryism noted the party's early protectionist beliefs, “later associated with the name of Whig.” Abbott, Wilbur C., “The Origins of British Political Parties,” American Historical Review, XXIV (July, 1919): 594–95Google Scholar. Johnson, E. A. J., Predecessors of Adam Smith, (New York, 1937), p. 347.Google Scholar

20 Davies, , The Royal African Company, pp. 101–06Google Scholar, demonstrates the close connection between the Tory party, the Royal African Company and the free trade position of the Company's major economic opposition, the rising English manufacturers and the interlopers.

21 P. J. Thomas' contention that Charles Martyn, a prominent Whig author, wrote the 1701 free trade pamphlet entitled Considerations upon the East India Trade supports this thesis. (Thomas, , Mercantilism and the East India Trade, pp. 94, 171–73.Google Scholar) The East India Company, Royal African Company, Assiento, and South Sea Company, all were examples of the use by the Tory party of monopolies to further Tory business enterprise.